And I sure hope it will. On Jan 15, 2008 1:03 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but, a move to JSF 2 is MUCH bigger than to 1.2 (from 1.1) > > -M > > On Jan 15, 2008 9:57 AM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, which mean that I might make such propositions or support them, but > I'm > > not the only member and I'm pretty such that some members see apparent > > backward compatibility to be a precept above anything else. > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 11:35 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > aren't you part of the EG ? > > > :-) > > > -M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 7:46 AM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > Personally, considering there's always backward compatibility issues > > anyway, > > > > I wouldn't mind seeing some new ones if it was to allow JSF to be > much > > > > faster, easier to use and more extensible. Like standardizing > FacesBean > > for > > > > instance. If done correctly, it would give a decent speed boost, > allow > > > > easier and more intelligent state saving as well as many other > goodies. > > I'd > > > > really like to see a way to extends the Lifecycle more easily as > well, > > maybe > > > > implying standardization of the Phase classes. Maybe adding new > phases > > as > > > > well like register resources occurring before render to push all > > > > dependencies in a rendering context and thus allowing all script > > references > > > > to be rendered in the head element thus respecting w3c. A coherence > > > > validation phase as well as a mean to execute a Callback on the > whole > > tree > > > > (to implement custom phases for example) wouldn't be unwelcome > either. > > > > Anyway, we'll see that in due time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 10:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > nice... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 7:23 AM, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:16 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > We here can only talk... The spec itself is made behind closed > > doors > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Not really "closed" > > > > > > "ajar" would be a better word: at least everyone is allowed to > > comment > > > > > > on early drafts > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > --Manfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > > > further stuff: > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > further stuff: > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org >
